What the newspapers say about medication adherence:a content analysis

Background - This study investigates the coverage of adherence to medicine by the UK and US newsprint media. Adherence to medicine is recognised as an important issue facing healthcare professionals and the newsprint media is a key source of health information, however, little is known about newspaper coverage of medication adherence. Methods - A search of the newspaper database Nexis®UK from 2004–2011 was performed. Content analysis of newspaper articles which referenced medication adherence from the twelve highest circulating UK and US daily newspapers and their Sunday equivalents was carried out. A second researcher coded a 15% sample of newspaper articles to establish the inter-rater reliability of coding. Results - Searches of newspaper coverage of medication adherence in the UK and US yielded 181 relevant articles for each country. There was a large increase in the number of scientific articles on medication adherence in PubMed® over the study period, however, this was not reflected in the frequency of newspaper articles published on medication adherence. UK newspaper articles were significantly more likely to report the benefits of adherence (p = 0.005), whereas US newspaper articles were significantly more likely to report adherence issues in the elderly population (p = 0.004) and adherence associated with diseases of the central nervous system (p = 0.046). The most commonly reported barriers to adherence were patient factors e.g. poor memory, beliefs and age, whereas, the most commonly reported facilitators to adherence were medication factors including simplified regimens, shorter treatment duration and combination tablets. HIV/AIDS was the single most frequently cited disease (reported in 20% of newspaper articles). Poor quality reporting of medication adherence was identified in 62% of newspaper articles. Conclusion - Adherence is not well covered in the newspaper media despite a significant presence in the medical literature. The mass media have the potential to help educate and shape the public’s knowledge regarding the importance of medication adherence; this potential is not being realised at present.

Pharmacogenetics and the print media:what is the public told?

Background: Pharmacogenetics is a rapidly growing field that aims to identify the genes that influence drug response. This science can be used as a powerful tool to tailor drug treatment to the genetic makeup of individuals. The present study explores the coverage of the topic of pharmacogenetics and its potential benefit in personalised medicine by the UK newsprint media. Methods: The LexisNexis database was used to identify and retrieve full text articles from the 10 highest circulation national daily newspapers and their Sunday equivalents in the UK. Content analysis of newspaper articles which referenced pharmacogenetic testing was carried out. A second researcher coded a random sample (21%) of newspaper articles to establish the inter-rater reliability of coding. Results: Of the 256 articles captured by the search terms, 96 articles (with pharmacogenetics as a major component) met the study inclusion criteria. The majority of articles over-stated the benefits of pharmacogenetic testing while paying less attention to the associated risks. Overall beneficial effects were mentioned 5.3 times more frequently than risks (p < 0.001). The most common illnesses for which pharmacogenetically based personalised medicine was discussed were cancer, cardiovascular disease and CNS diseases. Only 13% of newspaper articles that cited a specific scientific study mentioned this link in the article. There was a positive correlation between the size of the article and both the number of benefits and risks stated (P < 0.01). Conclusion: More comprehensive coverage of the area of personalised medicine within the print media is needed to inform public debate on the inclusion of pharmacogentic testing in routine practice.

Misreporting:a glowing report

As a former science writer for several UK national newspapers, I commend Simon Lewis for his balanced and valuable analysis of how to deal with misreporting (Nature 468, 7; 2010). Lewis avoids the common error of assuming that the bylined journalist was responsible for the headline or the final text. As I know all too well, stories can be extensively rewritten without being referred back to the named author. Complaining about this practice is regarded as naive and career-limiting. His experiences show how one can use the rivalries that exist between newspapers to obtain some redress for misreporting. Newspapers delight in reporting egregious examples of misreporting by rivals. Thus, in approaching the UK newspaper The Guardian, Lewis targeted his complaint about the original Sunday Times report perfectly. I am glad that Lewis was able to gain some redress. I am also grateful to him for reminding me how good it is to be out of the newspaper business.